|
jrodefeld posted:You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day.  From the expert of skirting around issues....Praxeology, praxeology, PRAXEOLOGY
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:8 pages in an OP has failed to explain why I should care about property rights. Human rights are so much better. Without property rights who would distill spirits?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Property is eft. wikipedia informs me this is the step between tadpole and newt i'm considering turning this into an allegory for the adolescent idiocy of property rights, but i'll allow the free market of ideas figure out the ideal way to do that, rather than imposing my statist will on the joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Without property rights who would distill spirits? Truly, the greatest testament for the failure of the Soviet Union was its lack of grain alcohol. asdf32 posted:Buddy you can have multiple rights. Not just one right from which all others must be logically derived. I mean, it's possible to have a political philosophy derived from one principle. It's just that he chose a really loving stupid one to start from. I harp on it a lot in the big thread, but the Veil of Ignorance is a single principle that doesn't end up with you debating the finer points of debt slavery or pontificating on whether or not the Native Americans were asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Truly, the greatest testament for the failure of the Soviet Union was its lack of grain alcohol. Well what I'm saying, is that the result of applying that and creating a well functioning human society is inevitably going to result in compromises between competing rights. Because the bottom line is that rights are always in conflict with each other. For example freedom of speech is a right and a good one but doesn't prevent people from being prosecuted for crimes carried out through speech or writing. Imagine how absurd that would be. Libertarianism takes a reasonable right to have and control posessions to a perverted and ultimately self defeating extreme. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
They don't? Norway, Sweden and Denmark who you probably would label leftist is three of the countries that gives the most amount of foreign aid as a percentage of their gross national income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid#Top_10_aid_donor_countries_.282013.29
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:They don't? Norway, Sweden and Denmark who you probably would label leftist is three of the countries that gives the most amount of foreign aid as a percentage of their gross national income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid#Top_10_aid_donor_countries_.282013.29 I think what he's actually saying there is "why don't they give money outside of any state's borders", in other words, "why don't they give any money to me so I can make a seastead and go galt".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Yes, why don't they fund unstable and unestablished non-state actors? What could possibly go wrong?
By popular demand fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I think what he's actually saying there is "why don't they give money outside of any state's borders", in other words, "why don't they give any money to me so I can make a seastead and go galt". Nah, he's definitely going the standard conservative concern troll route of "oh, you think the 1% have too much money? Well, on a global scale, perhaps it is you who has too much money! Why don't you want to fix that? Oh, you do? Time to talk about something else." asdf32 posted:Well what I'm saying, is that the result of applying that and creating a well functioning human society is inevitably going to result in compromises between competing rights. Because the bottom line is that rights are always in conflict with each other. I think we're in agreement then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
But leftists haven't given enough to solve world hunger, so clearly this is because progressives aren't actually interested in doing it and couldn't in any way be a result of right-wing opposition to foreign aid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But leftists haven't given enough to solve world hunger, so clearly this is because progressives aren't actually interested in doing it and couldn't in any way be a result of right-wing opposition to foreign aid. Typical leftist, always blaming things on someone else. You need to take some personal responsibility! Now let me tell you about how the only reason I'm not a billionaire captain of industry is because the government is taxing my money and giving it to
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Reminder that jrod is the guy who became a Libertarian after he tried to apply for SSI but there was too much paperwork, and he blames this on the progressives who want to expand the program and make it more accessible, and not on the right-wingers who waged a successful campaign to make getting assistance as difficult and miserable as possible. So it makes sense that he'd blame the too-low amounts of foreign aid on the progressives who want to give more and not on the conservatives who are always fighting to give less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Nah, he's definitely going the standard conservative concern troll route of "oh, you think the 1% have too much money? Well, on a global scale, perhaps it is you who has too much money! Why don't you want to fix that? Oh, you do? Time to talk about something else. His words don't support that though. The only sensible reading is that he's bitching we don't give money to people who are somehow not in any state, which is approximately no people outside people currently on transoceanic air/sea transport. No point to give him more credit and assume he means something that at least makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Oh, Jrod, I know you've got a lot of people yelling at you, but I did have a first page response that I'd really like it if you could respond to. If nothing else, to just these three tiny questions:theshim posted:I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:His words don't support that though. The only sensible reading is that he's bitching we don't give money to people who are somehow not in any state, which is approximately no people outside people currently on transoceanic air/sea transport. No point to give him more credit and assume he means something that at least makes sense! No, check out his very next sentence. And the next paragraph. jrodefeld posted:Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:His words don't support that though. The only sensible reading is that he's bitching we don't give money to people who are somehow not in any state, which is approximately no people outside people currently on transoceanic air/sea transport. No point to give him more credit and assume he means something that at least makes sense! "Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal" No, Nolanar's right. Jrodefeld's clearly taking the position of "Well you come from a rich country, why don't you give some of that money to poor starving people in the Congo?" He's trying to say that 'leftists' don't want to redistribute money outside of the state they're in. Except he wrong because: a) They often do want to transfer wealth from one country to another to help those in need and he's completely mischaracterising the general opinion of leftists. b) Not all leftists are after complete and total material equality and many (most?) are instead after a moderation of the excesses of Capitalism rather than their complete removal. c) Those who do want complete equality wouldn't want to do it in the way jrodefeld presents, which is the stupidest way possible where the richer countries are impoverished until everyone is on the same level. Instead the goal would be spending money of development, infrastructure, industrialisation, etc to bring the poor countries up to the level of the richer ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, check out his very next sentence. And the next paragraph. You are being entirely too fair to a man who deserves no such fairness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I'm a fair guy. Even though I'm still hanging by one finger waiting for jrod to provide me with a libertarian justification to convince the owner of this condo to allow me to save my life by pulling myself up the rest of the way on to his property 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reminder that jrod is the guy who became a Libertarian after he tried to apply for SSI but there was too much paperwork, and he blames this on the progressives who want to expand the program and make it more accessible, and not on the right-wingers who waged a successful campaign to make getting assistance as difficult and miserable as possible. You got a quote for this? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. No, it's moral to take from others who have too much, and give to others who don't have enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
When you say I can do what I want to my own body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, what does that mean? Let's take heroin, for example. Have you've seen what opioid addiction can do to a person. It's terrible. Their get skinny, short term memory is shot to hell, and they become a shell of themselves. It really hurt me to see my friend turn that way. We live in a world of balance. I can say that yeah, heroin is bad and should be illegal but I also recognize that I can't stop every self destructive behavior that's out there. You're the one pushing for a world of extremes. Either heroin is legal, or we make fast food illegal. It doesn't work like that. We can draw reasonable lines and boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:You got a quote for this? jrodefeld posted:Let me tell you a short story. A buddy of mine is a libertarian who follows this stuff pretty closely. He told me a story of a poor woman who happened to be black who was married to a good husband. Unfortunately, she was struggling to make ends meet and sought out some assistance from the welfare office. She wasn't trying to get on permanent welfare and was by no means a moocher. She just needed some help putting food on the table and providing for her family in the short term. She was told explicitly "we can't give you this money unless you kick your man out of the house". She was shocked. She said "no, he is a good husband, I don't want him gone I just need a little help in the short term." The answer didn't change. Kick the man out of the house or you aren't eligible for any assistance. It goes on from there, pro-week for the libertarian thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reminder that jrod is the guy who became a Libertarian FTFY
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It goes on from there, pro-week for the libertarian thread This post also serves as a reminder that Jrod believes that an insanely racist and sexist email forward actually happened in real life. "It's not the blacks' fault they're all lazy welfare queens, their inferior minds cannot help but fall into the devious trap of government handouts!" And then has the audacity to say Malcolm X would be on his side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Libertarians like Malcom X and black nationalism because they see it as a good way to get all the black people out of their neighborhood and into another country. They just kind of ignore the part where Malcom X wasn't advocating for the bantustans that Libertarians want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
I can see no reason Malcolm X would disagree with a man arguing all people should be seen as property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I don't know about Sweden but the social-democratic system (including collective bargqining) was put in place in Finland back when we still had people dying of hunger and the country didn't become prosperous by western standards until the early 1980s thanks to technological advances (brought by research by publicly funded universities and public-private partnerships) and because we had the redistributive system - including state owned heavy industry - in place it was beneficial to more people than in any free-market system, and to the society as a whole because any working-class child could educate themselves to become skilled labourers with little monetary investment. Of course then the financial sector got deregulated just before our largest trading partner collapsed (the bilateral Finno-Soviet trade agreement was hardly laissez-faire, too) so the resulting recession put the country on its knees, but the system still continued running a bit tweaked and we shortly exceeded the 1980s level of wealth thanks to mobile technology (developed by the public tech universities in Oulu and Espoo)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:When you say I can do what I want to my own body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, what does that mean? No you see it's actually only the by-product of the evil government which makes heroin bad. Pure heroin used to be sold in shops and the only side-effects were constipation and addition. It's regulating and outlawing heroin which has caused it to be sold by a criminal element who adulterate it, not to mention the criminalisation issue that causes. People are poisoned and then imprisoned, harming the poorest people in society in multiple ways due to the regulations imposed by government. In a Libertarian society people would have all manner of drugs available to them and would naturally gravitate towards high quality low consequence ones, thus freeing them from the cycle of poisonous modern day street heroin. Some people may make bad decisions but that can't be stopped and they'll suffer the natural consequences of making poor choices as a natural consequence of their actions without any need for outside interference in the actions of the marketplace. The above is a perfect Libertarian argument in that the first paragraph is roughly true but then the second paragraph is a thoughtless and poorly thought out ideal that only sounds good on a superficial level when it's not thought through. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
generative grammer posted:I don't know about Sweden but the social-democratic system (including collective bargqining) was put in place in Finland back when we still had people dying of hunger and the country didn't become prosperous by western standards until the early 1980s thanks to technological advances (brought by research by publicly funded universities and public-private partnerships) and because we had the redistributive system - including state owned heavy industry - in place it was beneficial to more people than in any free-market system, and to the society as a whole because any working-class child could educate themselves to become skilled labourers with little monetary investment. You should read the libertarian thread, if only for the Finnish libertarian popping in and immediately having a meltdown. It's a thread highlight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No you see it's actually only the by-product of the evil government which makes heroin bad. Pure heroin used to be sold in shops and the only side-effects were constipation and addition. It's regulating and outlawing heroin which has caused it to be sold by a criminal element who adulterate it, not to mention the criminalisation issue that causes. People are poisoned and then imprisoned, harming the poorest people in society in multiple ways due to the regulations imposed by government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I feel like the centrist approach is being excluded here. Why couldn't private industry or a state agency provide users with purestrain heroin? They could and would probably do a far better job, especially a state agency where the effects of addiction and needing another high no matter how much it costs would be treated as a health issue to be addressed rather than a great advantage in boosting sale regardless of the poverty it inflicts (and the crime from low income addicts needing to get another fix). Hence how it is a unreasonable Libertarian stance dressed up as being reasonable. The current framework for dealing with drug addicts is undoubtedly bad, but that doesn't necessarily make a superficially analysed Libertarian option the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:When you say I can do what I want to my own body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, what does that mean? emotion isn't real, you are weak and will be selected as unfit
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Buddy you can have multiple rights. Not just one right from which all others must be logically derived. I don't know. You could derive a set of morals from the idea that everyone has a right to be happy. It makes a lot more sense than picking some secondary thing like property and then also asserting that this maximizes happiness. I feel like any sane philosophy starts from the position of wanting to increase welfare (whether of many or a few) and then goes from there. A society that doesn't exist to serve humans doesn't make any sense. Fundamentally, either the conflict is that we believe that society ought to serve all people, and jrod agrees, but disagrees about the means by which that is achieved; or it is that jrod believes that society should only serve some segment of the population at the detriment of another. If the first, then you ought to be persuaded by evidence that your political ideas don't actually serve the common welfare, and be willing to discard property rights when they come into conflict with human rights. If the second, then go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't know. You could derive a set of morals from the idea that everyone has a right to be happy. It makes a lot more sense than picking some secondary thing like property and then also asserting that this maximizes happiness. Although better than property, I don't think maximising happiness (or any other one common principle) can by itself act as a single guideline. I mean you could conceivably really gently caress over certain subsections of society on the basis of maximising happiness amongst the majority. I think a focus on a host of different collective and individual rights and freedoms (E.g. having the right to freedom of speech even if what you're saying makes the majority of people who hear it annoyed and causes a net loss in happiness) is the way to go and I don't think there's any one tenet that we can say encompasses them all. When those rights come into conflict they'll have to be adjudicated on a consistent but dynamic and responsive basis (e.g. if someone commits a crime then they can lose their freedom by being imprisoned with what qualifies as a crime and the amount of time they lose their freedom being decided based on individual assessments of whether laws have been broken).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:When you say I can do what I want to my own body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, what does that mean? Pseudo-stoicism is intrinsic in libertarianism. Total stoicism makes some sense, even if it's not great; sure, you just punched me in the face, but I am in control of my own mind, and while pain signals may be involuntary, my response to those pain signals is totally voluntary. "I am the captain of my soul" etc. etc. Libertarians generally say that emotional harm is non-actionable, because in principle, we should be able to have the power to interpret it as we will, and therefore as beep-boop types we need not suffer harm from seeing our heroin addicted friends. As a former libertarian, there exists a real fear, suspicion and hatred of arbitrariness. If you permit the creation of laws against anything which might make people feel bad, you can forbid anything, arbitrarily. If you permit the creation of laws against some of those things, well, that might function decently, but the line drawn will be arbitrary, and some bad laws will be passed. Therefore, laws based around people's feelings cannot be permitted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't know. You could derive a set of morals from the idea that everyone has a right to be happy. It makes a lot more sense than picking some secondary thing like property and then also asserting that this maximizes happiness. This pretty simply deals with the issue of why using something as simple as 'maximize happiness' can be problematic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Although better than property, I don't think maximising happiness (or any other one common principle) can by itself act as a single guideline. I mean you could conceivably really gently caress over certain subsections of society on the basis of maximising happiness amongst the majority. Right. This exactly. Human morality isn't logical and therefore human society can't be entirely logically derived. IE the trolley problem and its variations. This is in no way meant to diminish the power of reason which is essentially the main thing separating us from animals and the thing on which all our prosperity rests. But it's how things are and there is no excuse for reaching adulthood and not grasping this in some way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Although better than property, I don't think maximising happiness (or any other one common principle) can by itself act as a single guideline. I mean you could conceivably really gently caress over certain subsections of society on the basis of maximising happiness amongst the majority. The Rawlsian metric would be to maximize the welfare of the worst off people in society. Right off the bat you murder the "utility monster" and "omelas" scenarios by saying that it is the wretched outcasts and untermensch we need to be most concerned with. If letting people hoard a bit of wealth encourages them to make society-improving innovations, then they should be encouraged to do so; but if they hoard wealth by siphoning off money from the rest of society, then they need to be reined in. It's incredibly straightforward and forms the basis of a lot of western social democratic thought, but it's filthy consequentialism and therefore poisonous to the Libertarian mind. asdf32 posted:Right. This exactly. Right. You absolutely need to start with some axiom or other to reason from. JRod has chosen his axiom as "property rights are inviolable," and absolutely cannot comprehend any morality that doesn't stem from that. It's like watching a fundamentalist Christian try to reconcile people behaving morally without believing in divine punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Although better than property, I don't think maximising happiness (or any other one common principle) can by itself act as a single guideline. I mean you could conceivably really gently caress over certain subsections of society on the basis of maximising happiness amongst the majority. I don't mean to get into an argument about utilitarianism. Use whatever moral system you want and then judge society by that. Don't take any facet of how your proposed society functions and ascribe that higher standing than your moral principles. If you're coming at it from the perspective of "Property is fundamental. In the conflict between human well being and property, choose property," you're just a crazy person. The only sane way to be a person that values property is to think "Property serves the well being of the people and therefore it is cool and good to make a society based around it" e: And then my point to jrod is that that's a thing that is contingent on evidence. If it turns out that property doesn't help people then gently caress property. Praexology, NAP, whatever, it doesn't matter. If it is demonstrated that your proposed changes to society make everyone worse off, then you shouldn't make those changes. Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Nolanar posted:
It took me far less than 18 years to figure out that the code of morality of my specific community is not universally held. How old is Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:27
|
|